tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 10, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EST
. the center for strategic looks at the nuclear committees. washington journal as next. host: we will take up the nomination of chief of staff jack lew to be the next treasury secretary. the legislation on the violence against women act. a house committee will take up the issue of a climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, on tuesday. also on tuesday, the president deliver in his state of the union address before a joint session of congress. on the sunday morning, february 10, we will preview what to expect during the president's address. we will ask you, what do you
think is america's number one priority? the president will be talking about it on tuesday. the numbers -- you can also send us an e-mail, join us at corridor.com -- twitter.com/cspanwj. great expectations, immigration is one of the issues on the president's agenda. he may get much of what he wants in part because a bipartisan support on the issue of immigration. he will look for ways to declare victory on guns and climate change. the focus on the economy, that is one headline we are getting. the front page of the washington post -- the reporting of scott
wilson, the chief white house reporter for the washington post. chris van hollen is our guest on c-span's newsmakers program. he is a leading democrat in the house of representatives. >> the president will be delivering his state of the union address this week. i think he will address those questions. we are so caught up in dealing with these short-term, self- imposed crises that is undermining our ability to come up with a long-term comprehensive planned. there are philosophical differences. our republican colleagues do not believe that there is any role for the government beyond providing for defense and funding the pentagon.
that is the view of some. it is not the view of the great majority of the american people. i think the president will propose -- nobody knows what the president will say -- i think he will propose lots of ideas about how we can support them -- to spur innovation in this country. the government has had an important role in basic research. i mentioned the national institutes of health. you have other agencies, in the energy sector or other sectors, that can help provide seed money for those sorts of things. host: the ranking democrat on the house budget committee, representative chris van hollen, our guest on a newsmakers. the "usa today" put it in one word, jobs. this is available online at usatoday.com. a point from joseph ramirez --
two other points, first on the issue of immigration, the president will say that he intends to make good on his promised to revamp the nation's immigration system and provide a pact with his citizenship for millions of immigrants that are in this country illegally. that is from inside "the new york times." donna joins us from maryland, and the democrats online. -- on the democrat's line. caller: i think what the president should focus on is the wide gap between the very wealthy in america and those who are poor.
we have seen the data. the four hundred richest people in america have more galt than the bottom 150 million. as we look to address the problems, we should not do something just for poor people. it helps everybody. we need to close the gap and have more people economically secure. host:, for the call. there is this from arnold. from schaumburg illinois, on the independent line. caller: my comment is, this immigration issue is related to jobs also. the media never likes to link the two. i have a career in the construction industry, and most people in construction will tell you that illegal immigration has a huge impact on the construction industry, as well as many other industries. illegal immigration and out of control immigration, too high
levels of emigration are driving down wage levels in america. in real inflation-adjusted dollars, the standard of living has been declining for working- class people. i believe illegal immigration has a huge role in that. i wish the media would focus on the relationship, the supply and demand relationship, of workers in the united states and how illegal immigration affects people in america. host: two key points being debated, a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants who are illegal in the u.s., and securing the border, a fault of the 1986 bill, the president and congress did not do enough. caller: 40% of the illegal immigration problem comes from our airports. they overstay their visas. nobody makes them leave.
the people of the world know that once you are in america, nobody makes you leave. until that changes, we are going to have out of control immigration, overpopulation, relative to the economy, we will have a rising levels of poverty, lower standards of living. a pro-immigrant admit is that they will all be entrepreneurs and they will all start the next google. that is a myth. host: cindy has this on our twitter page -- way, a reminder that we will have live coverage of the president's state of the union address on the c-span networks, including radio. our prie-dieu will get underway at around 8:00 eastern. we will kory-error the president's speech at approximately 11:00 eastern time.
generation's success is only possible because of past response -- past generations felt responsibility to each other. they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. that is how we will reduce our deficit. that is america built to last. [laughter] -- [applause] i recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt and energy and health care. no matter what party they belong to, i bet most americans are thinking the same thing right about now -- nothing will get done in washington this year. or next year. or the year after that, because washington is broken.
can you blame them for feeling all little bit cynical? the greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year did not come from event beyond our control. it came from a debate in washington over whether the united states would pay its bills or not. who benefited from that fiasco? i talked tonight about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street. but the divide between the city and the rest of the country is at least as bad, and it seems to get worse every year. host: from january of last -- of last year, the president in his state of the union address. some of the same themes it will continue this week. -- will continue this week. you're looking at a live at view of capitol hill. what is america's number one
that is from the weekly standard. study joins us from south carolina. . -- debbie joins us from south carolina. caller: i was just listening to the illegal immigration debate going on right before this. we need to do something for illegal immigrants. the parents we send back, the kids we leave here. i cannot have a child in south carolina and say, i'm going to take her to another state. second of all, the other thing
that concerns me -- why are we so concerned about illegal immigrants? they are here illegally. my daughter got a parking ticket and she had to pay $50. why would she have to do it if that is illegal? but these illegal immigrants are here illegally? do not feel sorry for them. if they came here, they knew there were not supposed to be here. we have some americans, especially in the south, out of work. my husband has a small business. he cannot compete against illegal immigrants here. then we will have all these other people here. they can live together in groups, in a one-family home. they could help with the medicaid, the unemployment, they could help with all of that, give the jobs to the americans. the big thing that they talk about with fruit and seasonal people. a the american people what they can.
let the little people go back home. they are breaking the law. host: you can also join the conversation on our facebook page and share with others why you'll be watching the state of the union address on tuesday evening. on the right there is a graphic that says, i will be watching the state of the union on a c- span. you can add that to your base page. go to facebook.com/cspan and hit the share icon. the summer caskey delivered at a republican response to the president's address. her focus was the issue of energy. >> energy is not a necessary evil. energy is good. that is why it is in our national interest -- interest to make energy an abundant, affordable, diverse, and secure. i believe that there is a consensus around these objectives. our challenge is to align
federal policy with them. to accomplish that, a blueprint offers some 200 and recommendations -- 200 recommendations. the immediate approval of the keystone xl pipeline and a trust fund for new research. every goal will be for the year 2020. we can and our dependence on opec oil. we can make renewable energy more competitive. we can reestablish the supply chain for critical menem -- critical minerals. we can ensure that research and not regulation is the force behind technological innovation. through sensible regulatory reforms, we can prevent the misuse of environmental laws and allow projects to proceed. all the while, we can maintain the highest environmental
standards in the world. the ideas in my blueprint would create new jobs, generate new revenues, and slashed our dependence on foreign energy. i would shore up our security and strengthen our economy. there would help us minimize the impact of energy development and reduce the emissions that are blamed for climate change. host: senator elisse of -- lisa murkowski. the president will lay out an agenda focused on the middle class, from "the new york times ." at the bottom of the story, there is this -- the president will announce officially that he will travel to the middle east with a two- day a visit to israel in mid march. that'll be the first time as
president and that he has traveled to israel. mary has this on our twitter page -- bill joins us from georgia, on the independent line. what is the nation's number one priority? caller: i would say probably violence. we are going to be working with senator feinstein to call on the president and the black caucus to speak out about why they do not say anything about beating up black people. they look the other way. they are getting paid. they are afraid they will lose their money for elections. it is a shame that black people cannot do anything without getting beat up. i do not have anybody to cover for them. thank you. i appreciate it. host: y weakling, a debate over
the second amendment. this is a photograph from 1999 -- 1989 -- 1999, following the shootings at columbine. republicans held a 10 vote majority in the senate in 1999. republicans narrowly controlled the house then. another advantage is 33 votes. there are very few moderates in either chamber. former president bill clinton sitting down with house democrats during their annual party retreat. on friday, the democrats opened it to cameras as and president bill clinton get congressional democrats a little bit of advice. >> it is obvious as a political strategy it is in the interest of our party and the programs and policies and lead -- and the direction that we believe and to make the midterm electorate look more like the electorate in the presidential years. i think that is obvious. i also think that we should not
rely on demographics alone. we should not give up on our ability, particularly in these periods when we are not in the heat of the election, to begin a conversation with people who are not as extreme as a lot of candidates they voted for in the republican party that we can get to before us. be for us. i see this on issue not as a toxic land mine, but an opportunity. host: bill clinton as he spoke to democrats in their annual retreat. we are joined live on the phone with a reporter who was there. thank you very much for being with us. we were attracted to the headline in europe on friday. guest: is funny.
i went to the republican retreat. both at private golf resorts in virginia. both shut off from the press. in the few moments we had with the democrats to trickle out of the room, a scene in pretty good shape, considering the fact that they are in the least attractive of political group in washington, the minority caucus in the lower chamber. they see that the president is beginning to come around to their economic proposals, their immigration proposals, there gun control proposals, and they have at the most popular politician in the country behind their back. president obama said he is ready to work with them. notably he and former president bill clinton had become more eager to get ahead, more progressive, vs senate democrats. you've got to be ready to
compromise a little bit with the other elements of congress in the coming months. you are going to have defections when it comes to gun control, immigration, and what we may have to do with a fiscal policy. host: you touch on that point, an unlikely ally for house democrats, the speaker of the house, john boehner. guest: that is something that many democrats have pointed out. he made -- he may need them to get some of these bills passed. as he did with the debt ceiling vote. as he did with the bill for hurricane sandy victims. as it came with the fiscal cliff agreement. i see that as a possibility with a gun control and immigration, because while republicans cannot be eager and willing to discuss the issues, pulling suggest that the house may have to pass something. i will meet democrats. host: -- they will need
democrats. host: you say the election created a new deadline for the gop? guest: if they do not act on certain things, they may suffer bitter consequences at the polls, especially in those purple districts, areas where republicans are vulnerable. most of the congressional map has been drawn in favor of republicans and that served in congress. it has been difficult for house democrats to retake the house. history shows that in the final two years of an incumbent president's second term, it is impossible for his party to retake the majority in the house. but, they say, look, congress continues to behave as it did in the past two years, the public -- republicans will be blamed. when it comes to economics, which part of the political
spectrum is getting blamed? it is congressional republicans rokita -- republicans. if they will not pass certain items with democrats support, democrats will make an issue of it. host: we are always glad when cameras are allowed. what is the back story to that? guest: they were telling us all day throughout the week that there is something that will happen. we had a feeling that this would happen. this is bill clinton after all. there has not been a porter that he does not enjoy talking to. -- a reporter that he does not enjoy talking to. they said, you can come.
this was an example of getting more than i needed. we showed up friday morning and not expecting to see that. we had it in the back of our minds, that he may show. host: the speech has been posted on our web site. it is available in its entirety at c-span.org. something to ask about on the front page of your newspaper, a preview of the president's state of the union on tuesday. on that front, what will we hear it -- what will we hear from president obama? guest: the president will in a sense, up from where he left off in his inaugural address, not just focusing so much on the social issues that he discussed at great length and with great explicitness, could take that on the economics front, concerning
job creation, about selling the issue of sequestration, realizing that that still remains a chief concern. he talked about that on thursday when he spoke to house democrats. he said basically, does this policy makes sense? will everybody involved in getting their fair share and at doing their fair share to advance the nation's economy? picking up on his approach, the balanced approach, he expects to drive that home. republicans had been digging in their heels when it comes to the automatic budget cuts on march the first. he has the bully pulpit on tuesday night. we will see whether or not he tries to put that in congress kos lap. and economic issues, it will dominate. there'll be a discussion on a
gun control. he will invite people to sit with the first lady. several lawmakers are now victims of gun control -- of gun violence as well. they will be there as well to try to get congress to deal more seriously with the issue. host: ed o'keefe, his story from "the washington post is available online at washingtonpost.com. speaking of guns and gun control, first lady michelle obama traveling to chicago, this story from the new york daily news. she traveled to the funeral of a 15-year-old girl who was gunned down one week after she attended and sang at the president's inauguration. inside a new york daily news, this is from james warren -- he makes this point --
marja, new york city, on the republican line. caller: my main thing is the economy and jobs. he is aight now -- truck driver. he cannot find a job. they are laying off people. all these trucks are coming from other countries into our country. that is okay. illegal immigration, it is ok for them to have it on the table, when all the americans are suffering. i do not understand how all these people keep sending money to the country, but they do not have money. another thing is, they all had cell phone. i do not understand -- have cell phones. i do not understand. their own country will not even
the democrats . caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the gun laws. i believe that all of these guns that have a lot of bullets and them and military guns, they should be banned it. if anyone is caught with one of them, they should have a huge fine and community work. and then, we turn all of the once confiscated all of back to the military where they should be. the other thing that is the illegal drugs, it has a lot to do with the guns. they should do something about drugs coming into this country.
the drugs are causing a lot of problems. >> host: thank you for the call. cal thomas saying it is difficult to conclude the state of the union is good when record number of americans are on food stamps and unemployment is 7.9% of record job losses. 8.5 million people left the labor force during the president it was a first term in office. the other issue, sequestration, something the president talked about in the weekly address. [video clip] >> thousands of americans who work in fields like national security, clean energy are likely to be laid off. firefighters, food inspectors could find themselves above work leaving communities vulnerable.
programs like head start would be cut. small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep the doors open. people with disabilities wicking for benefits could be forced to wait even longer. all economic progress could be put at risk. then there is the impact on military readiness. already there is a delay on an aircraft carrier to delay in the persian gulf. changes like this effect our ability to respond to threats and an unstable part of the world. we will be forced to make even more decisions and the weeks ahead of congress fails to act. the good news is, there is another option. instead of making deep cuts that would have cost jobs and slow down the economy, democrats and republicans put responsible cuts
and a manageable changes that will bring down the deficit. this time congress should pass a similar cuts until they can find a way to replace the sequestered with a smarter, longer-term solution. host: we will have live coverage of the state of the union address tuesday evening. the preview gets under way tuesday evening. and o'clock eastern time. we are sharing comments on our facebook page as well. jorge wsays this. politico reporting the president will be reporting for two states on wednesday. he is scheduled to travel to asheville, north carolina. atlanta on thursday. typical of the the state of the union address. he will showcase the scenes he
will be dealing with and the one-hour speech. >> looking sharp as usual. i think the most important thing we should be concerned with this thing out of wire with iran. that will cost us lives and the economy, it will basically destroy the economy. we keep listening to -- he wants to go to war. the next head of the assad, they are opposed to going to were sitting how bad it will be for israel. they will suffer casualties in their area i would not send
israel any more money and took they give any more money until he changes his policy. i would hope mr. chuck hagel gets to be secretary of defense. he is a good man that will put the welfare of the united states citizens ahead of those of israel. host: 21 for the call. it could come up this week before the senate armed services committee. this vote was delayed. some members of the committee had additional questions for the former senator and the dod nominee. last friday was the official last day at the pentagon. the story, the republican save your it. a profile of marco rubio. how he became the new voice of the gop. he will be delivering the republican response to the state
of the union address. he will do it in english and spanish. a statement issued by the office, he plans to outline how the republican agenda can help close the gap between dreams and opportunity. the first time we have had a bilingual response. this is from michael on the twitter page. the economy and jobs. the obama administration is concerned about his legacy. the democratic party at first, not much will happen. still, democrats live, from pennsylvania. >> good morning. what i believe is the financial dire straits we have been in since the last three administrations needs it fixed. what kills me is when this week and stop funding to this or that, but it is a drop in the
bucket. you have to plug every little hole. if you cannot do that, you need a new bucket. to have an inaugural dinner and defeated the worthless people that could not do their jobs for four years -- did to do that right in front of the american public, i am eating a peanut butter sandwiches, is an insult and a disgrace. this country needs to look hard at what we have for leadership and really look card, a democrat or republican, and figure out who is not doing their job and get them out of office. thank you. >> the confirmation hearing for a jack lew to replace tim geithner who stepped down late last month. he is the former chief of staff. politico reporting they are a snagging the political rights.
an investment he made in the political -- the white house says it was previously disclosed and is already a public matter. there are some concerns. this came out through the prayer of getting process to he is scheduled to appear on wednesday, february 13. paul is joining us from athens, tenn.. >> personal accountability. the government should tell us they cannot do everything for us. the republicans play against the democrats. the democrats play against the republicans. obama is the worst at it at the sunny the nation. the government cannot do everything for the people. why not pass a law that says,
you cannot die? there are people who believe it. do you know who the most gullible are? the media. guess who gets the best tax breaks? the media. there is not a tax break on media. there is not personal accountability. some people cannot make it, tough. they have been living on the dole. there are some that need it, most do not. we are going to give them something for nothing. >> thank you for the call. if you are just running and are listening on c-span radio, we are focusing this morning and the state of the union address, what you think is the number-one priority coming up in a couple of minutes, steve laterrett. victor shaw.
mali has this story from "to the hilt." house and senate lawmakers as seeking to cut salaries with the bills runs a from 10% to all of their pay. a bipartisan payment comes when they are at record lows. a little more than one month since the congress has convened. 16 bills has been introduced to downsize paychecks. belt-tightening efforts go from one plan. it would repeal the law that allows for the automatic pay increases. there are several companion measures. other bills calling for more stringent cuts. as long as the federal government runs a budget deficit. more details by logging into the hill.com. the next caller is from jasper, indiana.
caller: the criminals are the ones that have the guns. by passing a law and taking it away from law-abiding citizens, it would not help the situation at all. they need to leave it to -- host: james says this -- our e-mail address is -- peter becker has this story above the front page above the fold. he points out for years, the onetime critic of george w. bush finds himself cast as a present-
day mr. bush justifying the force and defense of the opposition while they have sacrificed to the core values in the name of security. the debate is done in exact parallel. he can point to ways he has tried to exercise what he sees as the -- the confirmation, his nominee for cia director underscore the degree to which the president embraced president bush opposed the former approach to counter-terrorism down to presidential action unfettered by outside forces. >> sue is trying as from an illinois. the quirks good the morning. the main priority would be the jobs for me and insurance.
it is so hard for our age group to start over and find a job. not that the young age group does not hard-working, but we need jobs and congress to do their job or get out of politics. everybody needs to stand together as a country. we are so divided. a have never seen a president so scrutinized by the fellow government. no wonder the world hates us. why should any opinions of the united states of america listen when we do not have our act together. >> will can the president said that can change that? caller: if he can somehow -- he will have to bend to make the other side happy.
they all need to make the american people happy. he is trying. we need to stand by the president regardless of if we are republican. which cannot be divided as a nation. that is what other countries cannot stand us. host: why does the president not try to do something that will unite the president again? this headline from the washington examiner.
patty is joining us. north branford, conn. host: thank you for taking my call. i think jobs should be the priority. you cannot stand behind president dividing the country. half of this country does not believe what he is talking about are saying. it is all empty words. it is all division has brought this country. i know he will go for climate change. he will go for gun control. he will go for immigration. all three things is wrong. this country needs jobs and to put the country back together again. >> thank you for the call.
it is a three letter word according to remarks made earlier by joe biden. this from "the washington post." we will be talking about domestic agenda items for democrats and republicans and get the perspective of our next guest. he is now heading up the republican mainstream partnership. later, kim candy to talk about the violence tamara after
delaying the vote last week. these are some of the issues and topics mechanic the sunday morning programs. >> on today it was a network tv talk shows, the conversation continues. looking ahead to this id of the union address. they will be talking about to run strikes and the economy. since then ready arrears' all of the programs beginning at noon with "meet the press." eric cantor and dick durbin. 1:00 "this week," with the co- chair of the progressive caucus and stephanie cut their from the 2012 campaign. fox news sunday when wallace sits down with tom -- sets down
with nancy pelosi. cnn and state of the union follows with candy crowley welcoming and this king did, robert gates, and kay bailey hutchison. face the nation with cbs talking with lindsey graham and jack reed. the sunday network talk shows this afternoon on c-span radio are brought to you as a public radio. they began at noon eastern with "meet the press." you can listen to them all on c- span and radio. nationwide on satellite radio.
find this on channel 118. >> having observed said the improvement and the opportunities and well-being of the citizens, i can report to you the state of this youthful union as good. >> once again keeping with the time-honored tradition, have come to report to you on the state of the union. i am pleased to report a america is much improved. there is good reason to believe the improvement can continue. >> my duty is to report on the state of the union. not the state of the government, but of the american community. to set forth the responsibilities and the words of the founders to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. the >> as we gather tonight, our
nation is at war. our economy is in a recession. the civilized world faces unprecedented danger is. if the state of the union has never been stronger. >> it is because of our people the the future is hopeful, the journey goes forward, and the state is strong. >> president obama delivers this year's address funds is spent with previous programs at 8:00 eastern and the president at 9:00 followed by the response and your reaction. host: we want to welcome back the president of the republican mainstream partnership. thank you for being with us. you have been out of congress for about one month and a half. the you miss it?
guest: end of, my life is a lot different. i do not have to stand up and eat food off of a toothpick. host: as you look at the republican party, where does the party need to go? fed e fix -- if you look back at the last five or six elections, your party has felt to get 300 or more electoral votes. one of the major issues the gop is facing. guest: the republican party has always been a center-right party. we have to represent the entire nation. if you look at the last number of congressional nations. even though have been in the majority, there is not one republican member of congress, nobody from new hampshire or a massachusetts, you cannot do the math to get to 270 and above
unless to represent the entire country. >> how do you fix it? " stevenson by monitoring the party. there is a tension going on. the base is very conservative you have to recognize the republicans and the new york minute like republicans and taxes and it needs to be an acceptance of a divergence a when he was too self identify as a republican as wants to recognize and the republican party. >> many people calling for a gun restrictions. the wife of a claimed to second amendment rights. this is a debate not only in the country >> i want to bring
and, in 2010 was above the same as it was in 1997. the statistic ignores the many working families are getting benefits like health care from their employer, not just wages. try explaining that. to expanding rising health-care costs and sang it is justified. as little consolation. her grocery bills are still high. her kids still need -- they have needs that are getting more expensive. the rent is up. now she is trying to get by. i think all of us not getting by is not the american dream. what was striking about
the speech is his focus on domestic agenda, middle-class agenda items and not some of the polarizing topics we have heard from republicans in 2012. guest: i am a firm believer that the republican musses drowns the other side's message. the majority leader, mr. kantor, has always had a role, why am i doing this? as a benefiting the economy? he is right on. there is no important issue more rigid we have a whole basket of the issues. the economy and the creation and the debt, the grouping has to be dealt with. if you do not deal with it, it does not matter where you deal with. host: we keep looking at these figures available online. $16.50 trillion is the nation's debts. wall street continues to see record numbers. the question is, does it matter? is it resonating with the
americans? guest: i think it is. it is some mystery. the majority leader was indicating that if you do not have a job but does not matter it is 14,000. again, the focus needs to be and how we remove the uncertainty that recalls the wrong texan, spending, regulation to anchorage employers to give back into the market and higher people. quirks a lot of comments about whether we are in a center-left percenter right country. we have this on social issues. there is no such thing as a republican moderate. >> that is not true. if you look at the republican mainstream partnership, the tuesday lunch bunch, we come from all backgrounds appeared to come from all parts of the country. on the issues that bill has just enumerated, we have different views. we have perjurers members of the
republican mainstream partnership. people who take a different position on guns. that is exactly what i am talking about. there cannot be a litmus test on what makes a good republican. the issue should be, do you believe in fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, and a small, effect of government? if the bill even those things, you can be a republican. it does not matter what you believe and the other issues. we should be welcoming. the fact we can look at somebody and say, you are not good enough to be a republican because he did not be the litmus test, that is why we have not done so well in the last few elections. >> you lost the election, deal with that. guest: that is sort of a bumper sticker that is not accurate. the country is a 47-47 country.
the fact of the matter is, if you look at the election results, not only the president to oppose the reelection, the great independent vote in the middle and swings back and forth. 58% of independents voted for nancy pelosi's party. once a loss the speakership, 58% of independents won with john boehner. my view is, and i would say it is from being progressive or democrat, the country is in the battle. you can argue, is it a little bit to the upper a little bit to the right. the country is in the middle and what they expect our results. they do not expect life issues impound are just curious or a republican so i will not compromise one iota. the same thing is expected of the democratic party. host: our guest is not the
president and ceo of the republican mainstream partnership, which is what? guest: it was funded by a moderate republican and it was to create a place for moderate republicans to gather and get together and talk about issues and figure out how we per going to be a constructive force within the republican conference. not enough to create a block of votes to win anything. enough to be enough of a wedge to join with a blue dog democrats to speak up and make a difference of where it needs to be. host: you can join us on the twitter page or send us an e- mail. as you look back at the 2012 election, was it the message for
the messenger that failed? guest: that is the debate going on in the republican party. a lot of my friends a it was the messenger. i would argue gov. romney with all of the debates -- he was forced to take the stage he would not qualify to take the president of the u.s. states and take positions that were out of step with what the country is. the question came up not only in the primary but the debates of president obama, if you were offered a deal on the budget that had $10 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases are revenue, would be to the deal. he said no. that is the nut is thing i have ever heard. ronald reagan would have grabbed that with both hands. but the time we got to the
general election, obama has been attacked so far to the right. but the time he got back, it was too late. the campaign did a brilliant job of focusing on the eight swing states. they began advertising before conventional wisdom said to advertise in august. they put this car on bain capital and all the other day getting things on the table. by the time to get to november, there is a scab built up on the principle on socially moderate fiscal conservative women. even though they have not been in love with were the president was taking the country host: time magazine has this gentleman marco rubio who will be delivering the republican response to the state of the union address as the republican savior.
is he the future of your party? guest: i don't know if he is the future but he is certainly an important voice. he came in as sort of the darling of the tea party down in texas but there's a good example combfmentgration. we talked about guns but there's another example that there has to be a path forward. and we can't just be the party of well, we're going to close our eyes and believe that these 11 million people wo are in the country currently don't exist. we have to deal with the issue. and that doesn't mean you adopt amnesty and you adopt the approach of some on the democratic side. but if there's ten issues on the immigration fight and we can forge an agreement that deals with five of them why don't you take that and fight about the other five? host: why is that so hard to do? guest: well it's hard to do because this is regional as well as party-wise.
i live in ohio. unless we get a couple drunk canadians coming across from canada over lake erie it's not a big deal. but if i lived in the border states of texas, new mexico, or california maybe elled have a different view. and so you have to balance all the issues. you have to balance the fact that people who did not follow our immigration laws, we now have to deal with that issue. but at the same time you have to be a sort of compassionate human being and recognize we're talking about people and they are here and what do we do about it. host: around says this. guest: what happens in these elections -- that's right on point. i believe this congress is going to go down as the first congress in history with the least amount of swing districts what that means is you don't have republicans sitting in seats that democrats have a
chance of winning and vice versa, ining it's 32. and when these -- you have these swing elections, the people get slaughtered are the moderates because they come from swing districts where the race could go either way based upon national trends. the redistricting has led to these bright red and blue districts without getting out of bed in the morning the republican or democratic candidate can get up to 75%. they have to spend most of their time feeding red meat to their base. and you have seen these aggressive primary challenges. just next door in pennsylvania, you've seen guys taken out in primaries and the challenge is they weren't good enough democrats just like you have the same thing on my side where people come after moderate republicans and say you're not really a good enough
republican. host: that's what he's saying. guest: that's not constructive. because rino or not if you look at my district, in 2008 senator mccain beat president obama by 700 votes. it is the sort of poster child for what a swing district is. now, you could not maintain a republican elected official member of congress in that district if you adopted some of the extreme positions that some folks in my party maintain. likewise, you couldn't have a fire-breathing blue progressive democrat who only went one way. the title of the job is representative. and so you are supposed to represent the people in your district and you're supposed to represent the people of the united states. and not every person that lied in the shth congressal district was a conservative republican.
host: thank you for waiting. caller: i've got to comment on c-span. the other day you had a gal on there about these illegal aliens and giving them citizenship and you put their phone number for illegal aliens to call in breaking our law and you had the audacity to allow them to have three or four more time on the air than american people. and i do not like it. i've been watching c-span for 20 years and this is not right and you people have turned to the left it's not even funny. host: i appreciate the call. i would respectfully disagree. this is designed to facilitate all kinds of points of view. democrat, republican, legal immigrants, illegal. and that was focusing on one of the shuss and hopefully if you quatch over the span of three networks, you're going to get what you want. you may not agree with every
event or every question or every guest that we have here but we are designed to really provide all facets of all issues to you and the american people. so i would -- i appreciate the call. i would respectfully disagree. but please go ahead. caller: marco rubio is not my savior. lord jesus christ semi savior. and marco rubio, if he continues on these illegals and these homosexuals to get in the republican party for votes there's going to be millions drop out of the republican party and they will be as bad as the democrats and never get elected again. this is getting ridiculous. if they want to pass laws up there on the illegals let them pass the mexican law. host: john, thanks for the call from florida. guest: again, john represent as point of view that's a valid point of view. but the fact of the matter is that there are 300 million americans and the objective is
to craft legislation consistent with the united states constitution that addresses the needs of everybody in the country. and i think with the growing percentage of the electorate that is hispanic, you can't just say we're not going to talk about it. now, to john's point. that doesn't mean that you have to throw up your hands and i'm going to do whatever you want. it does mean that you have to engage in conversation. so i give senator rubio credit for willing to engage in the conversation. host: and one of the viewers. guest: i make that point in every speech that i give that one of the problems in the polarization of the country is when i was growing up, you would watch walter cronkite at
6:00 to find out what happened and you go to bed and figure out what to do. today with the 24/7 news cycles, you do see people not going to the media in my opinion to get information. they go to reinforce what they're already thinking. so republicans tend to watch fox news. democrats tend to watch cnn and really way out democrats watch msnbc and that gives people the ability to say oh yeah shawn hanty said this so it must be right. and rachel mad ow said this and it must be right. everybody's an editorial writer today. that's why i use the internet. i'm smart enough and i think most americans are smart enough. give me the facts and let me figure it out. i don't need you to tell me what i think. zoom good morning.
caller: good morning, sir. host: good morning. caller: i happened to be a road tech. i travel from louisiana -- i live in texas and i live in a border town. what i wanted to address is i have been thoroughly checked out by the united states government. i've served in the u.s. military. for years i never picked up a hand gun. but it's a combat zone out there. there are people that show up in the rivers, they wind up down in the gutters. it's like another war out here. and what we try to do is we go into a facility and protect the american people from whatever is in that facility. the ideas that i just got through listening to the other gentleman, you've got the extreme left, extreme right, and what we have here is bad operators.
the idea that i can take my mechanism and beat it all day long with like a hammer and it will never go off. it's people that's doing what they're doing. and what we need to do is take away the bad operators. i've been checked out, rechecked out, p went through all the procedures and paid all the money, and i am one of the people that happen to be the working poor. i work to pay everybody else that's making all the laws. host: thanks for the call. guest: i don't quite get what he was checked out to do but i will say that his difficulty again in my opinion the difficulty of anybody who is working hard paying taxes playing by the rules trying to get ahead is being damaged by the inactivity in washington. and you brought up the debt path before.
and if we don't come to grips -- and this is the best example. i'm very much looking forward to the president's teach on tuesday. if we don't come together and figure out how to deal with the deficit and the debt it doesn't matter who follow it is rules. it really doesn't matter what you try to do. the debt is going to completely consume us. go back to the fiscal cliff at the end of last year. a lot of talk about well we've got to stick it to the rich people so taxes went up on people who made $450,000 or more. you know that what that generates a year is $66 billion. that is roughly what was then spent on hurricane sandy. and even if it hadn't been spent there it's enough to run the government for about six or seven days. it didn't do a thing. but there are people in this country who said the president won on taxes therefore we're in great shape. the president has to challenge his party on spending. the republicans have to talk about revenue.
and we've got to work this thing out . host: but in terms of what the president and democrats need to do if you look at enentitlement programs, you can take social security off the table because they say that's not really contributing to the debt and the deficit medicare and medicaid certainly are. are republicans -- are democrats in the mood to make some significant decisions and cuts on those programs? >> some are and some aren't. one of my other hats is going to the fix the debt coalition which basically says you have to have a big deal. a big deal along the lines of what the president and john boehner were working on a couple days ago, $6 trillion over the next year. i would disagree on social security. that's the conslentional wisdom and it's only correct in that because in 1968 lyndon johnson decided to hide the cost of the vietnam war by creating unified budgeted so the social security trust fund began being used for other purposes. but this past year is the first
year that money out in social security passed money coming in in the form of payable tax business about $48 billion. when people say it doesn't contribute to the problem they are right. what's happening is because of all this borrowing, we're redeeming iou's that have been put into the social security system when it was spent on something else. but where does the $48 billion come from? it has to come out of the general fund. and so you have to take a look. this is 2013. when social security started life expectancy in this country was 63. today it's 679. it was never -- 79. it was never going to sustain you for as many years as you contributed into the system. it's two thirds of the budget. those entitlements are two thirds of the budget. so it's like willy sutton the famous bank robber. why do you rob banks? that's because that's where the
money is so you have to look at everything. you have to look at taxes, entitlements and you've got to make some tough decisions. host: let me share with you the reporting of paul west. focusing on your governor. the medicaid plan splitting republican governors. saying that he support it is medicaid expansion. there are about 15 republican governors saying no to this expansion. there had been a push to try to get all to oppose it. and there's this from rush limbaugh. we guest: we wish they would go back to florida but ohio is the ep center and if anybody calls john case i can a distinguish or a rhino they don't know him very well.
he has correctly determined that the medicaid expansion program is the best way to deal with ohio's uninsured. host: so there's this suggesting that revenues are still on the table. do you think that we need to reform thed to to raise more money? guest: absolutely. and every model shows that. when speaker boehner was down talking to the president he put $800 billion of revenue on the table and immediately the very conservative republicans said you're talking about raising taxes and so forth and so on what the speaker was talking about and continues to talk about if you simplify the tax code and take away some of these safe harbor that is you can raise $800 billion over ten years of more ref new to the federal government. and that then becomes the piece and then we should take the president at his word that it then needs to be something that is two or $3 for spending cuts
of every increased revenue. then you get to $4 trillion. host: as soon as possible the president talked about that, they said it's off the table. bill clinton talking on friday about the 2014 election. we're already talking about the next campaign when we have two years before voters go to the polls and no plan on either side to get to these issues. guest: there is a plan and there's good news. simple son bowls commission, if you remember, that was president obama's fiscal commission. he appointed them. sadly he's walked away from all the recommendations. but i offered it with jim cooper, democrat of tennessee and we got 38 votes the last time we did it. they just had a vote this week they're up to 75. so i think senator mcconnell is talking about the fact we're not interested in raising the rates. but at the end of the day you could take away every private jet, you could take away every
caymen island account. you could take away everything else ifment doesn't get there from here. it's a more complicated problem than that. and i think it's time for my former colleagues to stop worrying about the next election. because i'm living proof the congress did not end when i retired after 18 years. and it really is time for people to reach the conclusion that we need to take care of the next generation and we need to take care of america rather than focusing on how am i going to win in 2014? host: we're talking with steve latourette who represented ohio in the u.s. house of representatives. he is now the president and c.e.o. of the republican and mainstream partnership also close friends with john boehner. is he still enjoying the job? guest: guest: i have a one-year ban that i can't talk to my former colleagues a lot. but i think the speaker is glad to be the speaker. i think he's doing a great job. but he has people say the president has a tough job?
boehner really has a tough job. in that if you go again to the fiscal cliff when we're trying to figure out how to get out of the fiscal cliff but at the same time do something good for the country, the republican vision was to not only raise taxes which the president -- boehner came to the conference and he said look two things are irrefutureable to your other tweet. president obama has been reelected. get over it. and taxes are going up and there's nothing we can do about it. our goal is to minimize the amount of tax increases while at the same time get spending reductions to get this house in order. when some of my colleagues said they wouldn't go along with the speaker on plan b, said you can't bring a plan to the floor, what that basically does is send the speaker into battle with no body armor because he's got nothing to lay on harry reid's desk or the president's desk and say this is our position. what's your position? let's work it out.
caller: good morning. first off i would just like to say that i never hear any moderation from the republican party. and i think they do that because if they showed any moderation they wouldn't get reelect bid the conservatives in this country. they wouldn't have their support. and that's all this is all about is the social conservatives trying to change what's legal now. basically abortion. what's not legal, gay rights. you know. they're completely -- forget and realize that the mid until this country wants us to be a little more progressive. why won't you all speak out and take those issues off the platform, the abortion issues and gay rights, take that off your platform and show some moderation?
don't be so extreme in your point of view on the right. and then maybe the left will give in just a little bit also and we can all live in the middle again. because that's what we need. host: thanks for call. guest: that is a great call. i have to disagree a little bit because there is a center of the republican party just like there's a center of the democratic party. but neither are the majority in their parties. it's interesting that that caller came from south carolina. i know a lot of people from south carolina and i think he must be lost because that isn't the view that most south carolinians certainly republicans have down in south carolina. but look, the republican party is not going to abandon its principles just like the democratic party stnt going to abandon its. what i'm suggesting is that on some of these issues we should be spending more time focusing on the thing that is people care about. and that is the economy getting a job making sure that your
kids can do as well or better than you have, which is the american dream. and stop wallowing in some of the issues that divide us. they don't have to continue to talk about thing that is are divisive. why don't we talk about the things that how are we going to move this country forward. host: to larry's point. guest: well, i do understand. but i don't think they're incapable of solving it. they have not solved it and there's nothing on the horizon that indicates that they're going to solve it. but the solution is there. you can come up with your own plan. mitt romney had a plan. but again, it is what's happened with these bright red and blue district, everyone see that is if you give an inch, if you want to accommodate, if you want to find that sweet spot that's in the middle again you
get called a rino as one of your viewers was kind enough to label me or you get called a turncoat if you're a democrat. and again, the purpose of republican main street and there are other groups on the other side, the new democrats, that are attempting -- our mission is to empower those who want to find solutions. and protect them from extremists quite frankly on the right or left that just want to call us names and raise money based upon the fact that encouraging the congress not to fix the problem. host: good morning. welcome. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions for mr. latourette. the first one is how come the republicans are so timid? every time you say well he won the election, but they don't
say how he won the election. it was voter fraud that got obama elected. and there's proof of it because there's the lady in ohio that claims she voted twice and how many thousands of democrats have voted twice? guest: well, the president won reelection. sadly from the republican point of view it really wasn't close. the other sort of wakeup call for the republican party is that even though the republicans maintain the majority in the house of representatives, with 233 votes, it's the first time that we've been in the majority where more americans voted for a democrat to represent them in the congress in terms of gross vote totals across the country than for republicans. so it basically comes down to the fact that the districts have been constructed in such a way that it permitted the republican party to maintain
their majority. that needs to be a wake up call. and again, with all due respect to the voter fraud, any time somebody loses, somebody crice foul. and -- cries foul. and we need to get past it. the president of the united states is the president of the united states. baun boehner is right that's a fact and he is going to be for the b next four years. so our job isn't to do everything the president wants to say. it's to be the loyal opposition and offer constructive solutions to problems that put people back to work and turn the economy around. host: israel says this. guest: well, that's not true. you know, that's just not true. there is a center of the republican party just like there's a center of the democratic party.
and rush limbaugh is an entertainer. he hasn't been elected to anything. and the same with fox news. they're desirous of selling advertising so they have to sell a certain message. there's a center. and the center just in my opinion needs to be protected, needs to rise up. and as the one caller said needs to speak out a little more and say if we're going to be a national party, if we're going to be ronald reagan -- the day he was shot up at the washington hilton, he was speaking to a group of tradesmen about the importance of prevailing wage. now, if you go across the street we have votes by some members of the republican party that want to take away the prevailing wage. we have to say that look, we want everybody in america to succeed. people that aren't well off, people moderately well off, people that are well off. and you don't get there by just sort of focusing on this notion that the president cheated and got reelected and we have to do
things about voter fraud. host: we have a new book on calvin cool guest:. she writes -- guest: i don't know if i agree with that because i think the -- that ship has sailed and that ship sailed with roosevelt as you came out of the great depression. the model of sort of not a weak executive but a lesser important executive and a stronger preeminent congress sort of went away. and for better or worse we now face the situation where you're going to have a strong president whoever that president is. and congress needs to fit in that model and make sure they don't get run over. but what you have with this
bickering is that the president uses his bully pup it to set forth a smebling and because the republican party in the house and the democratically controlled senate couldn't lead a one-car funeral, you've cleared the field for presidential action. host: by the way, the piece. she's also the director of the george w. bush center. she is our guest tonight and her new book on calvin cool guest:. bill is on the foon. good morning. caller: i'm calling about some ideas that i've got about -- solution to the problems. i was always a very liberal
voter until i basically saw the light and now see what you think about this and i'll hang up and listen to what your comment is. but number one, he says that the number one problem is -- actually two things. number one is the national debt is so great that we have a bolder on our back and we can't even stand up straight to even walk. it's a horrible. and number two the dollar has been devalued so unbelieveably low, it's like 100 something like that above what it was when it was first started. and between the congress and the fed they keep writing these paper dollars devaluing the dollar more and more. and i mean, this money is coming out of nowhere and then they get these loans on that. and then to do things in the country. and then we're paying interest on that. there's no risk or anything the
moneys came out of nowhere. so those two things and he says number one we should go bankrupt against the national debt and number two, start a new congressional dollar. i know it's kind of wild but that does sound like a real solution. host: let me say something about your first point because this morning in the new york times jim daugherty writes about ron paul and the libertarian wing of the republican party. so to go to the caller's point and what brian daugherty is talking about this morning, what about the ron paul republicans? guest: the ron paul republicans are again a valuable part of the republican party. i sat next to run for 12 years in the financial services committee and i can tell you some of his ideas are good and some are not so good. but to the caller's point, i agree with former congressman paul on the debt crisis. and if you look at that 16 gnat
trillion dollar debt and you look at the interest that we're going to pay and you look at the cost of money that the got has to spend to borrow more, i used to think that the national debt was like my home mortgage and you paid it off over 30 years and everything is fine but that's not the way it goes. it rolls. so two three times a week down at the department of treasury whatever has rolled is due, they have an online electronic auction. and the day that i had the chance to look at it it was $38 billion need to be rolled over and financed and it takes about 90 seconds to do that. they used to have many, many people bidding to take that united states debt. that day that i witnessed it there were only 15 other countries, china, wall street firms were bidding on the debt. now you know if you have an auction at your house and 100 people show up you're probably going to do a lot better in terms of the deal than if 15
people show up. so the cost of money where we run into problems and where congressman paul is right, if we don't deal with this the cost of money is going to wipe out any spending, any tax increases, anything else. we have to -- we can't be greece, we can't be spain. and have our debt equal our gross domestic product. host: from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm so tired of all this immigration stuff and we've got to take care of the mexicans and stuff. how come you all don't find a solution to keep them from coming up here to begin with? and find out why they're all running from mexico. if they're such great people why don't they fight for their own freedom down there instead of trying to come steal our kids' livelihood? host: part of the two-point debate over immigration. those who are here and also
border security. guest: again, that's why if you look at the -- they always have to come up with gangs in the senate. so i don't remember the gang number for immigration reform. gang of five, gang of six. but it has as a precursor the securing of the border. and it requires a certification by janet nap poll tano to say ok we've figured out how to secure our borders. but the answer to the question i think in terms of why do people from other countries want to come here, there's various reasons. this is the greatest country in the world and i think a lot of it is motivated by the opportunity to make their life better economically than they could experience in their own country. so that's pretty human emotion. host: our last call is from michigan. democrat's line. good morning. exiveragetsdz i just have a question for your guest. it just seems that every time republicans gain control we end up in this situation we're in. no jobs, people down,
depressed. and it seems that the only thing your people can seem to talk about is weapons and abortion. it's getting old and it's getting tired. guest: well, i don't know what part of michigan you're from but detroit is not the poster child for well-run cities and the administration there has been consistently comprised of the democratic party. and i say that because, listen, that's a bumper sticker. to just say things get worse when republicans are in control we talk about guns and abortion, we've got to get past that stuff. and where we've got to go in this country say look, we're all americans, we're not red, we're not blue, we're red white and blue and we have to move this country forward. and it's that kind of discussion that really is counter productive just like the republican guy who called up or road in and says you're a rino. look, we've got problems.
if we've got ten problems let's work together and figure out how to solve as many as we can to make sure that your kids, my kids have a better life than i've had or that you've had. that's the american dream. and to just sort of fight with each other and say well republicans are bad or democrats are bad, we're past that. and if we don't come to grips with the difficulties that exist in this country in can a constructive way we're in a world of hurt. host: so let me conclude with this question from one of our viewers. guest: the center is all over the place. it's in the mid atlantic states. ronald reagan was center right if you go back and really study him and not hold him up as some kind of arch conservative icon. and it's found in the republican main street partnership that i have. it's found in the tuesday lunch bunch, in the john quincy adams
society. we are there and it is important that our voices not replace the republican message but be constructive within the republican party to build the national party. host: steve latourette, 18-year veteran now heading up the mainstream project. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: please come back with us again. guest: i will. host: we're going to turn to the violence against women act. after delaying a vote last week, you can watch coverage of the debate on c-span 2 our sexanjn network and later we'll be joined by the center for strategic and international studies as we take a closer look at north korea. what can the country do and what does it mean for the u.s.? "washington journal" continues. it is sunday morning. february 10. we're back in a moment.
we have very few records about what actually occurred on the night that paul revere's plan got carried out in this very church. we know from mr. revere himself that there was a plan. it had been set up ahead of times across the way. he set it up on sunday but what we don't know is who actually helped mr. revere to carry out that plan. >> the mystery of boston's old north church lamp hangers.
>> what i've discovered as i've gotten older and more ma tour is that the absolute worst strategy to achieve happiness in life is to make that your prime goal. if you make happiness actually what you're striving for you will not probably achieve it. instead, you will end up being sort of narssistic and self-involved caring about your own pleasures and your own satisfactions in life as your paramount goal. what i've found is that happiness is best thought of as a bipero duct of other things. meaningful work, and family and friends and good health and love and care. it's -- we get happiness not by aiming directly for it but by throwing ourselves into life projects, involving ourselves in fundamentally trying to have
integrity and be a good person. >> in conscious capitalism. john mackie examines how the inherent good of both business and capitalism can lead to a better world. tonight at 9:00. and find more book tv on line. like us on facebook. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome kim gandy, the former president of now and now the president and crench o of national network to end domestic violence. again taking up the debate of violence against women act. it was delayed last week coming to the senate floor tomorrow. will it pass? guest: i believe it will pass the senate by a significant vote. not as high as it has in past reauthorizations though, which is really disturbing. the last two senate reauthorizations of va with a in 2000 and 25 were by uke.
unanimous consent. host: what's the criticism? guest: there's been a debate on almost everything that has come up in this congress the last few years and i think we all hoped that the violence against women act would escape the partisan politics. but it hasn't. some of the objection that is have been raised's are the immigrant protections for women, the protections for lgbt victims, violence and concerns about access to justice for women who are victims of violence on native lands, on reservationings. host: let me share with you a critic of the act with the independent women's forum had this to say.
guest: she obviously doesn't offer anything to back that up. in fact, the violence against women act since 1994 has been the cornerstone of the nation's response to domestic violence. wasn't half the funding both to law enforcement torks allow them to not only prosecute and deal with the criminal side of domestic violence but also to work with advocates, to understand the victims of violence and it also provides support for local programs like shelters, to support the needs of those victims. host: and along those lines the act was first signed into law back in 1994 by president bill clinton will do the following. it will strengthen federal pement force repeat sex offenders and created rape shield laws. it will also mandate that
victims are not forced to bear the expense of rape exams or for the protection orders. it requires the protection order to be recognized throughout the u.s. it helps to create dedicated law enforcement and prosecution units in police offices around the country. it provides funds and creates habitual offender crime and autsdz rised warrantless arrest thwart when probable cause is determined. guest: those are the thing that is this law has done for close to 20 years. the very thing that is you described. host: delayed last week because of the issue of tribal prosecution. can you explain what the senate was debating? guest: there were a number of issues that were raised. but i think the primary concern was something in this bill that came from the save act that was put into the violence against women act to deal with the problem of native american women who are victims of
domestic violence on reservations. right now a woman who is a victim of violence from a nonnative could be her husband, her dating partner, he could live and work on the reservation. he could live with her on the reservation. but he is a nonnative and he beats her, she has got to go to the nearest u.s. attorney, the nearest federal court to seek justice and it could be hundreds of miles away. so this provides for the indian tribe, which is required to provide all of the constitutional due process protections, to prosecute those crimes committed on the reservation against an indian woman by a nonindian if that nonindian has those kinds of significant ties to the reservation. it's very, very narrowly drawn to deal with a really specific problem of nonindians on
reservations commiting crimes. host: how are we doing as a country when it comes to violence against women? are we better than we were in 1994 the same is it getting worse? guest: significantly better since 1994 in terms of homicide at least. the homicides have dropped dramatically. there's a recent government study that looked back over the last 18 years since 1994 and said that the -- there's been a dramatic drop in domestic violence, homicides the drop in the rate of violence. it doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't still huge numbers of women being assaulted and that does happen. but the rate is down. and what i think that means is that women are being abused less often, that after the first incident of abuse or the second she finds a way out. there's a shelter there for her. she finds someone who can respond to her, who can help
her find a way out. so that she's not abused again and again and again. so although the rate remains high, the number of incidents of abuse is significantly lower. host: our guest spent more than two decades at the national organization for women serving as the president and now is the the president and ceo at the national >> house republican leaders use procedural gimmicks and stall tactics to block its reauthorization. i would remind leader canter and republican colleagues the seriousness of the delay. every minute house republicans wait to act, another 24 americans will become victims of domestic violence. every day house republicans stall another three women will
die at the hands of their abusers. every year house republicans put off action in order to please extremists within their own party. during that period of time, more than 200,000 women will be sexually assaulted, more than 2 million women will be stalked and more than 1.3 million women will be abused by their partners. it has been almost 300 days since the senate passed a bipartisan bill to help law enforcement officials protect women and their families but despite strong bipartisan support here in the senate republicans in the house refuse to join the effort to end domestic abuse. these partisan delays put women's life at risk. host: from the senate floor last thursday. so he basically set up my question about the house. where does it stand in the house of representatives and why have some blocked this bill? guest: well, there are ongoing negotiations in the house both advocates and law enforcement supporters of the bill are working with the both the
republicans and the democrats in the house to come to a conclusion on this. and we hope that it will result in passage in the house. but it does appear that the issue of the native american women is the one that is the stalling point. >> host: the bill is titled violence against women act. guest: certainly there are male victims of violence. it's approximately 7% as i recall. and they aren deed covered by the act. men are eligible to receive any of the services funded by the act and of course the law enforcement training, the stalker data base, all of those are used for the benefit of male victims as well. but it was called the violence against women act 20 years ago because the overwhelming recipients, the overwhelming victims of domestic violence
and sexual assault are women. host: when you talk to women who have been victims of domestic violence what do they attribute the root cause or causes? guest: it's changed over the years. when i first started volunteering at a battered women's shelter when i was a teenager in new orleans, the women would say, oh, i burnt the toast. you know, i didn't do something fast enough. i didn't do -- i wasn't doing what he wanted me to do. but i just -- i just can't make him happy. and we've moved so far in those 35 or 40 years from women believing and being told really by society that it was their fault to realizing that there's something wrong here. and that they're being beaten for reasons that they're not causing. and most of them would like to stop the abuse. they don't necessarily want to
leave the situation. but if they can't stop the abuse they need to have a place to go. host: jackson from birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. this should definitely not be open for discussion. i have a sister who has been through domestic violence. i don't know where these republicans come from. these are the worst law makers that i have ever seen in my entire life. we all need to vote in 2014 just like the democrats came out we need to be strong so we can get some of these republicans out of office. host: thanks for the call. guest: certainly the caller is right that this should not be up for discussion.
obviously we have to discuss as we pass laws. but the issue of violence against women is one that's serious. and as he said, if you have a relative, a friend who has been a victim of domestic violence, then you know how important it is to have services available and how important it is to have a responsive law enforcement that knows how to deal with these cases, how do identify them. and for instance, the stalking data base really critical to dealing with that. very, very frightening and important. host: couple ways you can participate in the conversation. you can send us a tweet or you can give us a phone call. and we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. the area code here is 202. the numbers are on your screen. our guest is kim gandy. there's this.
guest: because that's the way it was originally passed. it would be ideal, obviously, to have this be permanent, to not have to come back to congress every five years or six years or seven years and it's -- it's a huge drain on resources of advocates. it was passed in 94 and it wasn't reauthorized again until 2000 and then it wasn't reauthorized again until 2005 and then we've now been working, we're on the third year trying to reauthorize it this time. so it's a huge drain of advocates' time that we would wrath ber spending in direct service. host: but clearly there are laws on the book if any man abuses a woman, if any man hits or injures or kills somebody there are laws in the book to -- that would go after them. so why do you need this act as well? what's the difference between what our laws already in play on the books and what this act does? guest: certainly there are state laws on the book as there
were 40 years ago. there were always laws against assault and battery. but having law enforcement attend to them in the same way as they did stranger assaults was a lot more difficult then. and the one of the things that the violence against women's act has done is enhance that. but it also provides funding for law enforcement and funding for those local programs, those shelters, those hot lines, those data bases that make it possible to provide good services for the women who need them and the men and to get them out of those violent situations. and there have been a number of studies that say that the money that's gone into the violence of women act services have actually saved money in social costs, in getting people out who otherwise might have been killed, might have been in the hospital, would have lost their jobs and their incomes, been unable to support their kids, all of these services prevented those other losses down the
line. the other thing the act does is it addresses a narrow set of cases that are not covered by state law. particularly crimes committed in interstate activity, going from one state to the next. in fact, that was the first case and also federal lands including tribal lands. host: go back to your earlier experiences. are we doing better in as a society in training young women, educating them, their rights their responsibilities their strengths? guest: of course. things have progressed so much from the 197 0s when i first started in this. women are much more aware of what is right and what is wrong, that you know it's pretty common back then for people to think, well, sometimes men hit women because they asked for it. and hardly anybody says that now. we really have come a long way
there. but violence does still happen sadly. and there's still a need for services to provide shelter. one of the reasons that the rate of domestic homicide is down is that there are fewer women killing their abusers. because they have a place to go. they're not -- their backs aren't against the waufment they've got resources to go to. but there are still people who reach out for help and don't get it. we do a 124 hour census every year called domestic violence counts. it's a 24 hour count of nearly 2,000 programs around the country. it's all of the local shelters and counseling programs, transitional housing. all of the services for survivors of violence. and we say in this 24 hour period how many people did you serve? how many adults how many children? and how many people were turned away because you didn't have
resources? and out of 75,000 people served in this 24 hour period, there were 10,500 that were turned away for lack of resources. so even today not every call is answered. not every cry for help results in a bed and a shelter or an opportunity to escape. host: as we take this next call from connecticut, again a look at what is in the violence against women act. lisa is on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a friend that is a recipient of the violence against women act due to the fact that she was married to a u.s. citizen who abused her. fortunately she is no longer with that abuser. but in this state of connecticut she cannot get assistance due to the fact that she is not a legal permanent resident even though immigration has issued a letter
so that she could get public assistance, whatever you call it. but the state still refuses to help her. so she tried going to shelters. they also told her since she is no longer with the abuser she has been denied shelter help. so it's like there's no help. some states do help you but then some states it's like when you tell them you've got to go through the abuse all over again and they still don't get it. and that doesn't make sense. guest: i really feel for your friend and what she is going through. there are really serious shortages of help available. frequently, as i said, in that one 24-hour period more than 10,500 calls for assistance were turned away because there
were no resources. that doesn't mean they didn't try to find some other way of helping but the help that was requested wasn't available because there weren't enough resources and that varies from state to state. we did a study in the last few months just released the end of january that the funding for local programs has decreased dramatically. something like 80% reduction in united way funds, 08% of programs have seen a reduction in their support. almost 90% i think in local state and local support coming out of state and local support reduction. so we continue to see cuts on almost every day in the resources that are available. even the violence against women act authorization has been cut by 135 million. host: one of our regular
viewers talks about her own abuse. guest: for those of us who work with victims of violence the fear valleyly palpable and they don't know where they're going to go and they need a place that they can take their kids. that's part of it, too. is they know if they leaving by themselves would be one thing. but they have to find a place that they can go and take their kids because they don't want their kids to be the recipient of the wrath after they're gone. host: james joining us from georgia. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is the warrantless entry into homes as a provision of this act that i just heard you detail. what justification? why can't you simply go get a warrant? guest: well, if someone calls and says to the police i'm
being beaten, i'm not sure why the police would need to go and get a warrant in order to respond to that kind of call. i don't think that they would have to in a nondomestic violence situation. and what we want is for domestic violence to be treated the same way as other crimes would be treated. but frequently it's not. frequently you find people saying oyoy, you find people saying that that is just between husband and wife, just a domestic problem and not for us to be involved in. we want it to be clear that if there is abuse occurring, the police have not only the right to intervene, but the obligation. >> kevin has this point, what about the women who use the process by making false claims to gain the upper hand in divorce cases? >> i am not sure why using the violence against women act would give them an upper hand. you still have to prove your
case, even with the violence against women act. it merely creates an opportunity for you to have a place to go to have shelter and police with the proper resources to deal with your case. but the facts still have to be proved. the right to trial by jury, all of the protections that normally are accepted. this sum to provide services and training. host: jim says this -- why not just go to the nearest fire station and a call the cops? guest: many women do. many women do call the police. no question. then the police come out. maybe they arrest him and he is out on bail in two hours. then what? then you are dead.
host: ban is joining us from ohio. get -- caller: why is there some much violence today against women? when i was a young man one of the first things my father taught me was that you never hit a girl, a woman. now you have all of these punk rap groups talking about ho this and b that. they think it is cool to be of women. that it is cool to treat women disrespectful. also, the american civil liberties union does the job of taking the bible and prayer out of school. with all this stuff going on with sandy hook, those people that were murdered, but we would
teach our kids biblical principles here back in the 1940's and 1950's, we have kids packing heat? guest: one of the issues raised by the caller is about teenage violence. it has become a huge problem. that really is something -- there was always domestic violence. it was the silent epidemic of violence, now we see so much abuse going on among younger people. the same kind of domestic abuse power and control, not allowing her to be around people -- all of those red flags of abuse, we are starting to see them in 13, 14, 15 year-old. middle school, we're seeing
dating violence, which calls for a national response. host: the caller also brought up the issue of violence we hear in rap music and other culture. guest: there is no question that there has been a coarsening of culture in terms of violent words and violent lyrics. particularly related to women. that has been going on for 20 years and is a serious problem in my opinion. host: to get your take on this, historically have men abuse women? guest: there are conversations about that all the time. the first time the volunteer at a battered women's shelter and you see what goes on, you see the suffering, it makes you ask the adult question -- why is that? why do people do that? there are probably a lot of reasons, but in my opinion they
are connected in many ways to the fact that violence is glorified in our society and that it is frequently seen as the appropriate response and d. manly response, so that a man who feels he has been disrespected feels that he is justified in responding to violence. whether it is his girlfriend or a guy on the street who has disrespected him. i think that is a serious, serious problem. host: our guest is the ceo of the network to end violence against women. new york city, good morning.
caller: i wanted to ask this question -- what should be done to the woman who falsely reports about domestic violence against innocent men? why is it always [indiscernible] i think that when the women are allowed to abuse the system, the only victims of the children. the current victim of this fraudulent domestic violence disease, my son is from new york city. i filed a petition in the court. then they allowed it to come back. bailout the woman to go to her friend on the 16th.
because i represented myself, they knew it meant without prejudice. they have five days to refile the petition. host: your response? guest of the caller raises the question of what happened to someone who files false reports. there are laws in every jurisdiction against false report claims. of course there are punishments for that. if a person is established to have filed a false claim, a false police report or given false testimony under oath, there are stringent penalties for that. host: to go back to our earlier
question, one of the viewers answers -- because they can. jerry joins is next, from a blanton. >> good morning. my question -- host: you are on the air. guest -- caller: my question and comment, why would they take away a person's second amendment right? and also labeled it a misdemeanor? but a misdemeanor charge -- you might as well call it a felony. you cannot get a good job. in some cases, some of those things are bogus charges.
guest: i would like to respond particularly to the issue of guns. there is a domestic violence and gun ban that has been convected against domestic violence, that you are not eligible to carry a gun. i think it that has led to many fewer murders, because we know that women, and there is a presence of the gun in the house, they are seven times more likely to be killed. it is extremely, extremely important to make sure that if a woman or a man has a protective order in a domestic violence case that the person against whom the order is issued should not have a gun. host: this is from randy --
guest: certainly, there are funds that provide for and should, in fact, do what we can in other countries to protect women, who are frequently not well protected. to the extent that we can help those women, that is a chimney important. at the same time we have to make sure there is adequate funding in the united states. there are still so many needs that are unmatched. host: the senate is taking of the violence against women act tomorrow. you can watch the coverage on c- span 2. louise is joining us from hot springs village, arkansas. caller: thank you for c-span.
my comment concerns the cultural problem in this country. as another caller said, it was unthinkable to raise a hand against a woman. now we have life imitating art with g.i. jane, the movie, putting women into combat, suggesting that they're physically every bit the equal of men. i think we're trying to solve this problem with funding rather than as a cultural problem. i would like to hear your guests comment. guest: there is a cultural problem of suggesting the violence is the right answer, particularly that violence is a manly response to anything the to object to. i think that you are right,
there is a cultural issue there. but you are wrong about what happened when you were growing up. it is true that there was a taboo against hitting women. i grew up with that in the deep south. but the reality is that it was happening. it was happening behind closed doors and no one talked about it. it was not until the 1970's and 1980's before people really started talking about the fact that there was violence happening behind closed doors and it was in good families. host: why do women stay in abusive relationships? guest: there are as many reasons for that as there are grains of sand on the beach, but in many cases the abusers themselves are
almost like dr. jekyll and mr. hyde. it is a very typical abusive personality. i once saw an advertisement that said one man says he loves you and brings you flowers and makes you breakfast in bed and tells you you are the most important person in the world, the other person belittles you, breaks you down, it's you, they are the same man. that is the case. sometimes it takes a while. it starts out slowly with will put downs. isolation, one thing you -- not wanting you to spend time with your friends. then it is cutting off your credit cards. it builds up slowly. it is like a frog in the cold water were you heated up slowly and you wind up killing the frog. whereas if you just drop the fraud in hot water, it would just popped right out. sometimes it is a slow-growing
abuse. by the time it becomes intolerable, extrication becomes difficult. you have got to have a place to go. one thing that we do know -- lots of research on this, the most dangerous time for an abused woman, the time she is most likely to be killed, is in the first year after she leaves the abuse. that is very common. if you leave me, i will kill you. if i cannot have you, no one can. very common. frequently people that made the decision to leave, they are afraid to leave. that is why the shelters are secret. these women are frightened, frightened frightened that he will find them and kill them and sometimes he does. host: our last call is from pittsburgh.
gene is on the phone. caller: this is a loaded topic come a very interesting. as an employer i am seeing an epidemic of younger women coming to work abuse. broken arms, black guys -- you name it, i have seen it. what can we do? my concern is for the very young. overall as a culture we do not expect women as adults and consequently this perpetuates abuse and intolerance. host: when you confront these women, do you ask them specifically what happened? are they open about their own
domestic situation? caller: it is very culturally driven. i say this as an african- american woman. ibis had a girl who was thrown out of her car literally at work. pushed out of her car. if you ask them, sometimes they deny it. but when it comes down to it, they have children and don't have the resources to lose. so, they are staying with the abuser for that reason. the police tend to you -- lose empathy for their situation. just as a community, this has become this acceptable their problem, not our problem, but it is impacting every social sent
-- social institution in one way or another. i have worked with people who are abusers and it is consequently difficult as a woman manager to talk to the abusive men. but it is not always men. pai-hua or the callers who were saying that women falsifying police reports, i know that if you do that or do not show up for a hearing, the law does try to aggressively address the issue. a thick we have to do a more effective job of educating people about the effect and its ramifications. we may not allocate resources to a eradicate this issue, but we are paying every nation in directly. whether it is the children, the
issue is a dynamic and we need to speak to that. host: thank you for calling and sharing your personal experiences. guest: the caller brought up something so important, the tremendous social costs of this violence. for every dollar that we put into preventing violence, getting battered women in shelters, out of this situation and into economic security, we save a tremendous, tremendous social costs on the other end. the caller is absolutely right, we have to deal with this and put even more money into it. host: national network to end domestic violence, kim gandy, ceo, a pleasure to speak with you. please come again. we will take a look at some of the other headlines the sunday morning. a reminder, we will have live coverage of the president's state of the union address, with
the republican response coming afterwards from marco rubio. for the first time the gop response will be in english and spanish. a preview this morning, "great expectations." id is the one issue on the president's agenda where he may 1921, but he will look for ways to declare victory on guns and climate change as well. this headline, the reporting is from scott wilson. focusing on the center for job creation, the president will concentrate on his state of the union speech, a four-member of congress working on gun-control, gaby giffords, on the front page this
morning. with her husband, mark kelly, and her new cause in tucson, ariz.. the weather is a front-page story in a number of headlines. the nor'easter hit on saturday nights, slamming into philadelphia. following the issue of sequestration, automatic cuts looking likely. lawmakers would only weeks to fend off sequestration as an estimated $1.20 trillion in reductions over the next decade kick in on march 1." an editor -- an editorial from "the weekly standard." he says that allowing the sequestered to go into the effect would be deeply irresponsible. that it would him handily cut
spending with no reports to domestic programs or big-ticket programs untouched. her host: some of the issues being talked about on this sunday morning from newspapers and magazines. coming up in a minute, we will turn our attention to north korea. victor cha will be joining us. a look at the other issues and guests on the sunny -- sunday morning programs, nancy callow. >> on today's network tv talk shows, topics include the upcoming state of the union address, drone strike, national security, with c-span air -- c- span radio rearing those shows. on "meet the press," and eric cantor and dick durbin. "this week," at 1:00 p.m.
with tom coburn and keep -- keith elephant, as well as stephanie cotter. at 2:00 p.m., "fox news sunday." chris wallace sits down with nancy pelosi and john mccain. stated that -- "if state of the union," follows at 3:00 p.m.. at 4:00 p.m. here "face the nation." bob schieffer talks with lindsey gramm and jack reed. as well as mike rogers. the sunday network tv talk shows, this afternoon on c-span radio, brock you as a public
service. it begins again at noon eastern with "meet the press," at 3:00 state of the union, "four- o'clocks state of the nation." listen to them all on c-span radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119. you can listen on your smart phone or go online to c- span.org >> if someone paid him to write 10 columns for $2,000 each and they published only six, he would summon the editor at issue and say -- what did the editors expect me to say? we paid you. saying it may be the columns were not good enough.
here is a check back for the columns you did not print. we asked -- why would he give back the money? he was entitled. that was his business and philosophy, because he wanted to do business with the other party again. very rare behavior now. i admire that. the life of the 30th president of the united states, tonight at 8:00 on a "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span victor cha, out with a new book, "the impossible state," north korea, past and future." how strong is the north korean nuclear program? guest: it has been in the making for decades.
as we found out last december, the have been able to successfully put a satellite into orbit using ballistic missile technology. they may have long-range missiles that can go 10,000 kilometers or longer. host: how serious of a threat in that region of the world and to the u.s. directly? guest: a very serious threat. we have this tendency to think of them as this strange country in the far corners of europe with kooky leadership, but the met -- development in their weapons programs are real causes for concern. it is concerning. host: cnn described this north korean propaganda video, saying
that the ship was pulled from youtube and that they were able to track it down. clearly taking in the u.s., let's just watch a portion of it. what does this represent? guest: it was a part of this news announcement with a dream of a north korean child who dreams he is on a space ship and he comes around to see parts of the united states in flame. this is a lot of sort of classic north korean propaganda that is national and framed as anti- american. so, they have clearly tried to educate an entire generation
into seeing the united states is the enemy, but at the same time they also understand that the united states is the only country that can help them get out of the mess they are in. host: there is a very young and untested leader in north korea. how is he viewed by his country? how much power does he have in north korea? guest: we have very loose sense of this at all. he took over as a youngster, sudden death of his father in december 2011. it appears that he has developed a semblance of leadership, because he is still there since taking power. but there are real concerns about the direction of the economy. what his agenda is, aside from
building more and more weapons. there is a lot there this concerning to everyone. host: what advice would you give to the only john kerry, but chuck a goal, in dealing with these issues? guest: not to let this fall onto the back burner. historically it has been a policy issue on the backside with presidents of this some other things. this issue suddenly rises and become the policy crisis that we are not well prepared for. for both senators kerry and hegel, the main device would be to not allow this to be something that is forgotten or treated as a second-tier issues. this is very much a first tier issue. host: the piece is available online and the headline is "the new capitalist."
it says that kim jong un might prove to be a new compromiser. "he let himself be seen with his fashionable wife." then it talks about the economy instead of north korea, pointing out that capitalism is peeking through the bamboo curtain. how so? guest: i think that is right, the whole concept of capitalistic markets in this society, it really reflects the failure of their economy. in the mid-1990's the north korean economy collapsed. there was a wide scale famine in north korea and people in order to survive went on to find whatever they could in the house in exchange for food, leading to the creation of black market in north korea, as well as official markets. a society like this, once you bring markets into it, it is
difficult to take it out of the country. it changes the mindset of the people. host: "capitalists are here to stay. the regime has tried to purge them by cracking down on the smuggling, but the traders often have enough cash to bribe their way out of trouble and moreover have become an indispensable part of the economy. like china, capitalism guest: that is an astute observation. we're seeing more and more elegant -- elements. there is a long way to go, but the most important thing that is changing is the mindset. ever since it has been in existence since the late 1940's they have relied on the state
entirely for their well-being. when they fail to deliver. in terms of food, people had to fend for themselves. you had the creation of the market. i think this will be a real challenge for a country that prides itself on having total and absolute control. our guest is now with the center for strategic and international studies, victor cha. a graduate of columbia and oxford. he has written and co offered a number of books. his latest is, "the impossible state -- north korea past and future."
you can send us an e-mail or join us on twitter @cspanwj. caller: good morning. my question is why do we allow china and others to continue to support north korea and moneys we are giving them? and then they blame them away and it is the chinese and others holding them up. it would not take too long for them is derrin medvedev to turn on their own people if they had the chance and realize the reason they are not getting food and what they need to survive over there is because they're spending their money on nuclear weapons and trying to outdo the west. guest: two very important points. the first is that the caller is right.
the only supporter these days in terms of providing both food and energy to the country, we do not know how much they provide. we always try to get a sense about how much food and energy they're giving to lenore's. they would never divulged. undeniably it is a very big part of what allows the system to survive. every time they do it ballistic misfile test, there's a great deal of pressure on china to stop providing these things, cutting off to the leadership to try to make them feel the squeeze to end this bad behavior. this is a country that promotes a disproportionate amount of its resources the feeling its weapons program while the
population and stars. that's clearly not an acceptable situation. the more people who understand it the better. host: is there more of a threat of nuclear north korea in a mistrial or a dirty bomb set off by a suicide bomber? -- in a missle or a dirty bomb? guest: they have not successfully mated a nuclear bomb with a long-range missile. they could provide the material for her nose who for years in a dirty bomb or possibly nuclear weapons technology and long- range technology from many of their traditional customers, countries like iran, pakistan. we all know what the dangers are involved in what we call
horizontal proliferation. host: is north korea still counterfeit in the u.s. currency? guest: this is a bit concerned when i was in the government. they're probably the no. 1 and most successful counterfeiter of the u.s. $100 bill. there counterfeits are so good that it goes by the nickname, the super note. part of the actions taken in 2006 and 2007 in freezing north korean assets was to try to get them to stop undertaking activities that could finance continued counterfeiting. i've been out of the government for a while so i do not know what the classified information's us on this. it was a concern and it something the government remains vigilant about. host: the topic is north korea's nuclear capability. our guest is victor cha.
the numbers are on your screen. this program was also carried live on the bbc parliament channel. from manchester, england, we welcome you to the program. caller: the morning, washington. i want to ask you two questions if i may. the first question being if kim jong un may really be in control of the country? he may be run by older members of the family and the military generals who have been influencing the government. host: stay online and we will get a response to that. guest: bottom line, we are not sure. i think the regime tries to give
off all the appearances that he is completely and totally in control. many experts believe that while he is clearly the leader of the country, he is surrounded by a small group of elders, if you will, members of his family, the military, elders of the party, who tried to give him advice. at the same time, we have seen a great deal of change in the leadership. top generals getting sacked, disappearing members of the family who are apparently ill. while he appears to be in control, no one knows whether he has completely consolidated power despite the ceremony and the pictures they show trying to give off the appearance that he is all set. caller: thank you. my last question is if we are
surprised given date take it so much pride in the propaganda internally -- given they take prid ofe, you think they will start a 24-hour news station to try to garner more support? guest: it's an interesting idea. they have used a few broadcasts. they have a national website as well. to be able to have a news channel to broadcast a roman world would require them to have a satellite, of course, which is what they try to put into orbit last september. they launched the payload into orbit but the satellite does not appear to be working right now. maybe that is somewhere in the
future. if they try to make their case to the world, we are still quite a ways away from that. host: this question is asked virtually every time you come on. any hope that north and south korea will ever unite like germany? guest: there is always a hope that it will happen. there's a mindset that the current division of the peninsula was something that was artificially done and in the end of the two will unite. it will be much more difficult than germany. the income gap is much wider in north and south than the war in east and west germany. it will be harder, but at the same time, i think it is something that will eventually happen. host: what about the obama's
policy towards north korea? has it been working? guest: they wanted to carry on the work that the previous administration had accomplished in terms of the agreement, but then they turned around in april-may 2009 and greeted the president with a ballistic missile test and a nuclear test. then the administration was hands-off. they have a policy of strategic patients showing that they were serious about returning to the sixth party agreement. then they made another effort in april -- i'm sorry, february or march in to thousand nine -- in 2009, and you can't blame them. host: another question on the
reunification. would china supported docks guest: -- support it? guest: the view has changed over time. for a long time, many people believe that chinese and korean interests were aligned. after 2010 when the north koreans did military provocations against south korea that were quite over the top, basically act of war, and then in response the chinese were fully backing the north koreans, it caused many to believe that china really wants to see them survive for a long as they can and it would not be in favor of unification. if you ask any chinese official if they support unification, the answer would be yes. they want a united korea that is not an ally of the united states. they do not see that in their interest.
host: an email from joy. guest: that would be ideal. the problem is the chinese really do not want to engage in a forward-looking conversation either with us, the united states, or with south korea. i think the south korean government has tried on numerous occasions to begin bilateral dialogues with koreans on the future of the peninsula. they're really not willing to have this sort of discussion. they do not want to be seen as somehow condoning the idea that north korea should not exist in the future.
host: the most recent book by our guest, "the impossible state." victor cha, a former educator at harvard, stanford. and he is now with the center for strategic and international studies. from logan, utah, good morning. caller: the first caller had a pretty well right. he was using common sense that our government officials do not seem to be using now. all china would have to do is go to north korea and tell them to knock it off. china is the beneficiary. they are shipping all of our jobs over to china. there are few markets making money in the only communist country will ever talk about is down here in cuba. we're waiting for that guy to die out.
with the first man said as 100% right. all china would have to do. we're doing exactly what china is doing to us and what we did to russia. guest: i think there's a lot of focus on the role that china should play in this. if the caller said china is the only country providing goods to north korea these days and there for the north koreans are very dependent on them. china has also invested in a lot of industries in north korea moving out a lot of the minerals. the northern part of north korea is very mineral-rich. they have been moving copper, nickel, iron ore, coal, and to the two inland provinces adjacent to the peninsula to help their own economy in china. they have really been working
toward its own benefits on the peninsula in terms of supporting north korea. where there is a lot of effort these days behind the scenes is getting china to contribute to this issue in a way to broaden the security interests of the region which is to do more in terms of persuading north koreans to engage in more responsible behavior. sometimes there requires punishing them. there's more and more pressure on china to do that sort of activity, but thus far it's difficult to say whether that has been successful. host: a compliment from ken saying it's always nice to see victor cha on your program on what he calls the "slave state dictatorship of communist north korea." guest: thank you for that. host: mary from bedford, texas. caller: bravo. we thank you because the females in the united states have an
unusual circumstance. when you flip over the stainless steel, and it used to be that correa was quite common. -- korea was common. now they have affected the females of the united states. question, when will this end? guest: i will comment on the part about korea and steel. this really says a lot about the south korean economy. south korea, as many callers know, at the end of the korean war, it was just a devastating piece of land and many experts believe the south korea would not advance beyond and agricultural-based economy for the rest of its existence. through the hard work of carranza, the help of the united states, south korea today-- hard
work of koreans, there the 12th largest economy in the world than they have had a great steel industry creating a lot of consumer appliances. now it is one of the biggest providers of high-tech, high and manufactured goods, flat screens, smartphones, things of this nature. it has been a real success story. adjacent to that, literally within the distance between new york and washington, you have had the same people living in a different society that has been in the economic basket case of the world. host: from the basque out on the independent line redo from nebraska. -- from nebraska on the independent line. caller: do believe they have the ability to put a nuclear bomb on
a short, medium, or long term missile? this would be a concern for neighbors in the region. guest: it would be a concern not just for neighbors in the region but a concern for people here in the united states. as of now, we don't know whether north korea can successfully miniaturized a nuclear device. they have done two tests in 2006 and 2009. they have been partially successful. they have never officially announced anything of this nature, so we do not know exactly how successful, but we do know that there were tests of nuclear devices. the north koreans have made clear they are ready to do a third test. many of us who watched this carefully have been on pins and needles because there are concerns that this third test
would demonstrate some kind of significant advancements in technology that would enable them to eventually put a nuclear warhead on any of these wide and deep portfolio of missiles developing. as of now, we do not know. host: can you explain the difference the product of plutonium and uranium used in these weapons? guest: 1 north street has largely done is to develop a bomb that is based on plutonium. -- what north korea has done is to develop a bomb based on plutonium. the estimate is between six and 12, some go north of 18, for the amount of weapons they could create with the plutonium they have amassed. in nuclear weapons program is
concerning because, one, it's very easy to hide a uranium- based nuclear program because you do not need a big footprint like a plutonium nuclear reactor, which is what they have. iranian you can spin in centrifuges in buildings the size of warehouses so they are difficult to find. -- uranium you can spin in centrifuges. this doubles the nuclear problem because we have to denuclearize plutonium and uranium programs. host: independence line from austin, texas, good morning to the program -- and welcome to the program. caller: good morning, mr. cha. glad to see you again. i have a question. you brought a very important
matter to the program. president obama and even president bush, you mentioned they were just not reacting seriously about china's role about north korea's radioactivity i. but forbid if anything were to happen on that peninsula, they would be a biggest loser also. guest: these of the arguments often made to the chinese about the role that they need to play. the question is why this china not do more? i think part of the answer is they're going through a leadership transition
themselves. there are debates within the government and within expert in policy circles about the degree to which china should continue to support north korea. a look at the level of business that takes place, on average, per annum, china does about 100 times more business-south korea that they do with north korea -- more business with south korea. they understand that their future in asia and on the peninsula is with south korea, not a sports career. -- not north korea. the short term tactical decisions rolled a day. in this case, the tactical decision as they prefer the known situation even though it may be uncomfortable to one situation that would be cutting
them off, collapsing the system. they just do not know what would happen there. for this reason, the behavior, the chinese behavior, it is often dictated by these short- term tactical decisions. host: you brought something up the reminded us of a photograph. this has been on the internet. you can google the image and this will come up. it shows the light in south korea and neighboring countries including china and then a very dark north korea. however accurate is this satellite photo? if it is, what does it tell you about life in north korea? guest: it is a very accurate, iconic photoperiod is not always as a lot about the development of the two countries that were established in the late 1940's but also says a lot about how this one country is situated in the middle of the most
economically dynamic region of the world today. yet because of its policies, they are not able to benefit or participate in any of it. in my book, i write about a trip that i took to north korea as a u.s. government official spending a few days there. then we crossed and took a helicopter back to seoul, then flying in and see the south korean skyline after spending three days in north korea, it is just astonishing to look at the differences in development in these two places. the only way to explain it is politics. it has nothing to do with the people. it has everything to do with the opportunities that one government allows people while the other doesn't. host: "the impossible state, north korea past and future. next caller, fort wayne,
indiana. caller: you mention the policies in this rich area. it is because of communist china. north korea is the puppet state of communist china. i believe these are actually under the direction of communist china. thank you. guest: that is certainly one interpretation and. there may be some truth to that. many of the experts believe china would like to see north korea stop doing these tests. these provocations means bad things happen. we enhance our military presence in the region, not to china's benefit. we strengthen our alliances with south korea and japan, their neighbors, which is not to their benefit. we tried to improve our missile defenses, cooperation with japan.
i think there are some who believe that china does not want to see these things happen and yet they are still unable, despite the significant material influence on the country, it's really effect the change in north korean behavior. host: military drills are taking place in south korea. what is the significance of this? guest: these are typical after the bombing of a vessel in the east sea. these are routine drills. i'm sure the north koreans do not like them, but we have a military alliance with south korea and part of that means keeping up readiness. these drills are a part of maintaining it in the region. host: last call from phoenix, ariz., your quick question for victor cha. caller: thank god for c-span and thank you, mr. cha.
we'll have to be naive to think china will ever give up north korea. they have a navy now. they're not going to give the cross of north korea up. we are way past major nukes' now. we're going onto the drones. guest: the caller makes a good point. i think a lot of people believe that china will not give up north korea for a variety of reasons including the ones that you mentioned. the real dilemma with china is as the obama administration pipits to asia where they say asia is now the most important strategic region in the world to them, while this is welcomed, it also causes a lot of consternation in china. china is much more distrustful of the united states and our
allies in the region making it even more willing to give up north korea. i believe it is in their long- term interests to do so. policy makers, diplomats, they keep trying to push on this with the chinese both here but in a south korea, japan, other countries. want past hope the new leadership coming in to china will take a different stance than the previous period -- than the previous. host: any plans to return to north korea? guest: i'm working on a different project, but this is something that i followed very carefully. host: victor cha, always great to have you with us. tomorrow morning, we continue the discussion at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, for clock for those of you on the west coast on "washington journal." our guests include amy walter
with the cook political report, previously with abc news, talking about gun control and immigration in advance of the president's state of the union address. we introduce you to a researcher for the civic learning in engagement as we talk about the millenials. just how out of is that generation? and john sopko, inspector general of afghanistan, coming out with a scathing review of the wasting of tax dollars. that is tomorrow morning. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern. "newsmakers" is next. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] cable satellite corp. 2013]